> -----Original Message----- > From: Paolo Abeni <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 10:50 AM > To: Nitka, Grzegorz <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Oros, Petr > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Kitszel, Przemyslaw > <[email protected]>; Nguyen, Anthony L > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Vecera, > Ivan <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kubalewski, Arkadiusz > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 net-next 03/13] dpll: fix stale iteration in > dpll_pin_on_pin_unregister() > > On 6/7/26 8:30 PM, Grzegorz Nitka wrote: > > Neither parent->dpll_refs nor pin->dpll_refs on its own is a correct > > iteration target at unregister time: > > > > - pin->dpll_refs includes DPLLs the child was registered against > > via a different parent or directly; blind unregister WARNs on > > the cookie miss in dpll_xa_ref_pin_del(). > > - parent->dpll_refs reflects the parent's current attachments, not > > those at child-register time. Another driver may have (un)reg'd > > the parent against additional DPLLs in the meantime, so we miss > > registrations that exist and visit DPLLs that have none. > > > > Walk pin->dpll_refs and use dpll_pin_registration_find() to filter > > to entries whose cookie is this parent. Symmetric with > > dpll_pin_on_pin_register(), correct under any subsequent change to > > parent->dpll_refs. > > > > Fixes: 9431063ad323 ("dpll: core: Add DPLL framework base functions") > > Signed-off-by: Grzegorz Nitka <[email protected]> > > The current guidance is to avoid the Fixes tag for net-next patches, > when such tag refers to code already into Linus's tree. > > If it's a real user-visible issue, the patch should target net. > Otherwise if the intended target is really net-next, no fixes tag please. > > Unrelated important node: sashiko (gemini) still has some comments, some > of them looks new and relevant to me i.e. the possible divide by zero > bug in patch 11, see: > > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260607183045.1213735-1- > grzegorz.nitka%40intel.com > > /P
Hi Paolo Thanks for your feedback. Regarding patches with 'Fixes' tag ... Actually patches from 3 to 7 in this series are indeed fix patches for the existing code. It was reported by Sashiko earlier for this series as pre-existing issues. Kuba suggested, at least this is how I understood it, to include it in the series to see a clean AI scan. So please advise on the next steps ... Should I simply remove 'Fixes' tag from the commits and keep those patches in the series? Or ... to remove them from the series and re-send as regular fix patches on 'net'? Regarding the latest Sahiko comments .. this specific one about divide-by-zero panic is false-positive. It was fixed with the latest revision. I'll respond in a separate message with my view on the other high ones. Regards Grzegorz
